Subject: wanted: stone-age recipes

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 10 Jun 94 02:27:00 GMT

-=> Quoting Paul J. Gans to All <=-

PJG> Probably not.  It is possible that you are beyond help.  

Ah, one of those *unbiased*, *helpful* replies.

Let me
PJG> just remind you that along with your stone-age diet you will get,
PJG> for free, the average stature of stone-age man and the average life
PJG> expectancy of stone-age man.  These are not big numbers.  And yes,
PJG> skeletal evidence gives us a good notion about them.

Unless you are *actually* a Neanderthal, you would have to eat a
seriously nutrient-deficient diet to have "stone-age man" stature.
And the quickest way to have a short life-span is to eat a modern
diet of high-fat foods, and to engage in modern vices like smoking.

PJG> And why do you assume that the foods of civilized cultures are
PJG> poisonous?  Or are you against eating tomatoes?

I would assume that the original poster was probably referring to
highly-processed, high-fat, high-sodium modern foods when discussing
"poisons." Obviously not everything we eat today is deadly, nor
was everything our ancestors (stone-age man, woman, and child) ate
wonderfully healthy foods all the time. And it would be ridiculous
to utilize "stone-age" principles of food sanitation and storage.

PJG> More seriously, I'm always amazed that some members of the healthiest,
PJG> longest-lived generation in the history of mankind want to give all
PJG> that up based upon a completely uninformed notion of human nutrition
PJG> and health.  Do we have to constantly remind folks that the "noble
PJG> savage" was an 18th century invention?  Guess so.  

While the "noble savage" was a silly idea and still is, the "brave
new modern world" idea isn't much better. We are the "healthiest"
generation in spite of our diet, not because of it; we wouldn't be
so "healthy" if we didn't have large advances in modern medicine
treating the effects of eating poorly.

Which is *not* to say that the solution is to eat as the Cro-Magnons
did. Frankly, making fresh food affordable and easily available
to lower-income families (and especially to children) would go a
*long* way to improving our overall health.

... Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Telnet hal9k.com or 152.160.13.1     | 10 dial-ins, speeds up to 28.8kb  |
| FREE Usenet mail and news for you!   | Call +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959  |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 15 Jun 1994 19:05:31 GMT

Laurel Halbany ([email-masked]) wrote:
: -=> Quoting Paul J. Gans to All <=-

: PJG> Probably not.  It is possible that you are beyond help.  

: Ah, one of those *unbiased*, *helpful* replies.

Yes, guilt admitted.  Sorry about that.  It was not helpful.

But we can have an interesting discussion about this.  I do not
pretend to have all the facts, but I've never let that stop me
before... :-)  :-)  :-)

To start with, stone-age man was NOT agrarian.  He and she were
primarily hunter-gatherers subsisting on quantities of meat when
that was available and what could be found when meat wasn't.  The
meat was not well-prepared, it was often infested with parasites
(and possibly spoiled as well), and certainly not fat free.  

We know (from plant remains) some of the vegetables eaten by stone
age man.  These were gathered as found.  When not found (winter)
one did the best one could.

The result was not a gustatory life style many of us would want to
emulate.

When agriculture first became common, an interesting thing happened.
The consumption of meat decreased, the consumption of vegetables
increased.  The life span went down, disease went up.  Seems strange
that this should be so, but it is (at least that is what seems to
be the conventional point of view in anthropology.

: And the quickest way to have a short life-span is to eat a modern
: diet of high-fat foods, and to engage in modern vices like smoking.

I can't argue with you here, except I'd use the word *shorter* life
span rather than short. 

At one point I said:

: PJG> And why do you assume that the foods of civilized cultures are
: PJG> poisonous?  Or are you against eating tomatoes?

: I would assume that the original poster was probably referring to
: highly-processed, high-fat, high-sodium modern foods when discussing
: "poisons." Obviously not everything we eat today is deadly, nor
: was everything our ancestors (stone-age man, woman, and child) ate
: wonderfully healthy foods all the time. And it would be ridiculous
: to utilize "stone-age" principles of food sanitation and storage.

I agree with most of this.  I do take exception to the phrase "highly-
processed".  First, I'm not too sure what is meant by that.  Certainly
olives are highly processed and I suspect that French cheese is too.  
Or perhaps the phrase applies only to Corn Flakes (which I'd call
highly sugared rather than highly processed.)  Second, the mere fact
of processing does not seem to me to make food bad.  I'd assume that
processing has got to alter the food in some way and that could 
decrease the amount of nutrient.  On the other hand it could also 
increase the longevity and decrease the chance of contamination.  So
the processing could be a trade-off and even perhaps a plus.

: PJG> More seriously, I'm always amazed that some members of the healthiest,
: PJG> longest-lived generation in the history of mankind want to give all
: PJG> that up based upon a completely uninformed notion of human nutrition
: PJG> and health.  Do we have to constantly remind folks that the "noble
: PJG> savage" was an 18th century invention?  Guess so.  

: While the "noble savage" was a silly idea and still is, the "brave
: new modern world" idea isn't much better. We are the "healthiest"
: generation in spite of our diet, not because of it; we wouldn't be
: so "healthy" if we didn't have large advances in modern medicine
: treating the effects of eating poorly.

I'd not agree that it is "in spite of our diet".  As a child I did not
have fresh vegetables, orange juice, or fresh fruit in the winter time.
I'd argue that having them now makes up in part for the french fries I
eat.  And yes, medicine has played a part.  But I'd argue as follows:
The major improvement in medicine (other than surgury) came when we were
first able to actually *cure* many diseases rather than just palliate
them.  And that happened with the discovery of anti-biotics.  And that
happened in the '40's.  Since then many who would have died of primary 
or secondary infections have survived.

So let's look at the generation that was in its old age in the 1940's.
They did not eat healthy food.  When I think back to the family dinners
I ate then I shudder.  When I think back to the conventional wisdom then
(an egg a day, for example) I shudder.  And yet that generation had
access to canned food (salty and processed), refrigerated meat, and
much cleanup of the food distribution system (I mean literal cleanup).
And as a result *they* were the longest lived generation of their time.

And they provide some interesting anecdotal evidence.  My great uncles
were born in Europe and raised in small villages.  They grew to a
height of perhaps 5' 4".  They emigrated to the US at the turn of the
century, married women of short stature (also born in Europe and raised
in small villages) and had children in this country raised on a typical
US diet.  The children were generally 6 feet tall (one is only 5' 10")
and, when walking with their parents, looked quite odd.  And the parents,
almost without exception, lived a great deal longer than their parents
or grandparents (or so they reported.)  Now this doesn't prove anything.
It is anecdotal, as I said, but it is suggestive.  I suspect that many
reading this newsgroup could supply similar examples.

: Which is *not* to say that the solution is to eat as the Cro-Magnons
: did. Frankly, making fresh food affordable and easily available
: to lower-income families (and especially to children) would go a
: *long* way to improving our overall health.

Hear!  Hear!  Yes it would.  This certainly we can all agree upon.

      ---- Paul J. Gans   [[email-masked]]

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:58:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>(and possibly spoiled as well), and certainly not fat free.  

I'll go out on a limb, because I can't provide references for what I
am going to say. In studies of the diets of modern hunter-gatherer
societies, meat makes up only a small percentage of the calories.
So, I would say that in all likelihood it makes more sense to say
that stone age people subsisted on what they could gather with
occasional meat as a supplement to the diet. The meat was probably
lower in fat than modern grain fed beef, and even so the life style
would not require a low fat diet to be healthy.

>one did the best one could.

They were probably able to figure out what roots, and other things
would store well, and were probably able to dry some foods for winter
use.

del

>be the conventional point of view in anthropology.

One suggestion I have heard for this was that living in close proximity
with domesticated animals introduced several new diseases. I would imagine
also that having invested that much time and energy into creating fields
and housing, one would tend to stick around awhile. This would leave one
in close proximity to human waste products and all the attendant health 
hazards. I'm assuming that most hunter-gatherers were nomadic, or at
least able to pick up and move fairly easily when their site got too
dirty.

As I said this is stuff, I have picked up over the years, I can't reference
any of it.

sph
-- 
"Return, good Catesby, to the gracious duke:" Shakespeare, Richard III,
                           III, vii, 65
                    [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Charlie Sorsby)
Date: 16 Jun 1994 16:06:52 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
= 
= But we can have an interesting discussion about this.  I do not
= pretend to have all the facts, but I've never let that stop me
= before... :-)  :-)  :-)

	Me too....  ;)

= To start with, stone-age man was NOT agrarian.  He and she were
= primarily hunter-gatherers subsisting on quantities of meat when
= that was available and what could be found when meat wasn't.  The
= meat was not well-prepared, it was often infested with parasites
= (and possibly spoiled as well), and certainly not fat free.  

A few inexpert comments here:

	While the meat was certainly not fat free, it almost
	certainly contained less fat than modern meats.  Wildlife,
	even today, is typically leaner than domestic animals
	raised for sale of meat.

	This is not to suggest that I subscribe to the more extreme
	anti-fat doctrine that is often preached these days.  Seems
	to me that the species must have evolved to tolerate, if
	not need, fat as well as other nutrients.  What has changed
	so much is the lifestyles that we lead today as compared
	with that for which the species has evolved.  To my mind,
	it is arguable whether dietary change can compensate for
	the change from lifestyles more in keeping with those we
	have evolved for.  Apparently it helps but maybe a change
	of other facets of lifestyle would help more.

[...]

= When agriculture first became common, an interesting thing happened.
= The consumption of meat decreased, the consumption of vegetables
= increased.  The life span went down, disease went up.  Seems strange
= that this should be so, but it is (at least that is what seems to
= be the conventional point of view in anthropology.

Interesting--I hadn't been aware of that.  But it doesn't seem that
strange to me.  For how many years had the species evolved as
hunter-gatherers?  Over what span did the transition to an agrarian
lifestyle emerge?  If that span was short (in an evolutionary tims
scale) it actually makes sense--to me, at least.

= : And the quickest way to have a short life-span is to eat a modern
= : diet of high-fat foods, and to engage in modern vices like smoking.
= 
= I can't argue with you here, except I'd use the word *shorter* life
= span rather than short. 

And even "shorter" must be qualified, eh?  :)  Shorter than we
would have otherwise?  As opposed to shorter than early man or even
man not so many generations ago?

= I agree with most of this.  I do take exception to the phrase "highly-
= processed".  First, I'm not too sure what is meant by that.  Certainly
= olives are highly processed and I suspect that French cheese is too.  
= Or perhaps the phrase applies only to Corn Flakes (which I'd call
= highly sugared rather than highly processed.)  Second, the mere fact
= of processing does not seem to me to make food bad.  I'd assume that
= processing has got to alter the food in some way and that could 
= decrease the amount of nutrient.  On the other hand it could also 
= increase the longevity and decrease the chance of contamination.  So
= the processing could be a trade-off and even perhaps a plus.

This is not by way of argument with this but merely an observation.
Seems to me that we have processing and we have processing (as you
point out).  In the eyes of much of the public, though, the word
seems to evoke the bad connotation--perhaps aided and abetted by
some groups...  I wonder how many people, when they think of
"processed foods," think of pasteurized milk (a health benefit) or
homogenized milk (a mere convenience) or dried foods (that gave us
a way of keeping certain foods for winter before canning was
developed or canned goods (that gave us not-quite-fresh vegetables
and such year round before the days of frozen foods) or frozen
foods (ditto but more recent) or ...

I supsect if one were to conduct a "what does processing" mean to
you survey (in a foods context) much if not most of the public
would think of things like artificial coloring or flavoring, added
fats, stuff like that.  The (shall we say) *good* processing is, I
think, so much taken for granted that it is no longer even thought
of as processing.

= So let's look at the generation that was in its old age in the 1940's.
= They did not eat healthy food.  When I think back to the family dinners
= I ate then I shudder.  When I think back to the conventional wisdom then
= (an egg a day, for example) I shudder.  And yet that generation had
= access to canned food (salty and processed), refrigerated meat, and
= much cleanup of the food distribution system (I mean literal cleanup).
= And as a result *they* were the longest lived generation of their time.

An excellent point.  I grew up during that era (born in '36) and my
parents before that.  They are both alive and well and active and
in thier eighties...  Maybe those foods weren't as bad as they are
presently painted.  :)

= And they provide some interesting anecdotal evidence.  My great uncles
= were born in Europe and raised in small villages.  They grew to a
= height of perhaps 5' 4".  They emigrated to the US at the turn of the
= century, married women of short stature (also born in Europe and raised
= in small villages) and had children in this country raised on a typical
= US diet.  The children were generally 6 feet tall (one is only 5' 10")
= and, when walking with their parents, looked quite odd.  And the parents,
= almost without exception, lived a great deal longer than their parents
= or grandparents (or so they reported.)  Now this doesn't prove anything.
= It is anecdotal, as I said, but it is suggestive.  I suspect that many
= reading this newsgroup could supply similar examples.
= 
= : Which is *not* to say that the solution is to eat as the Cro-Magnons
= : did. Frankly, making fresh food affordable and easily available
= : to lower-income families (and especially to children) would go a
= : *long* way to improving our overall health.
= 
= Hear!  Hear!  Yes it would.  This certainly we can all agree upon.
= 
=       ---- Paul J. Gans   [[email-masked]]

-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Mordea)
Date: 18 Jun 1994 02:58:32 -0700

Paul J. Gans ([email-masked]) wrote:

<CHOMP!>

: When agriculture first became common, an interesting thing happened.
: The consumption of meat decreased, the consumption of vegetables
: increased.  The life span went down, disease went up.  Seems strange
: that this should be so, but it is (at least that is what seems to
: be the conventional point of view in anthropology.

<CHOMP! CHOMP!>

     You seem to be tieing the change in diet to the downward change in 
life span.  But isn't just as likely that the increase in disease came 
about due to the new and as yet unadapted for trait of (comparitivey) 
large concentrations of humans living together?  After all, it is widely 
agreed that that land being used in agriculture can support a higher 
number of people than land that is being used in a hunter and gatherer 
type lifestyle.
   The highter the concentration of humans living in any particular area, 
the higher the chance of plague.

Mordea
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  "Alright!  Alright!  Let them eat PIE!"
                    -Marie Antoinette, last words

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 19 Jun 1994 17:38:02 GMT

I wrote about the shortening of life-span and deterioration in health
in the first agricultural communities.

Mordea ([email-masked]) replied:

:      You seem to be tieing the change in diet to the downward change in 
: life span.  But isn't just as likely that the increase in disease came 
: about due to the new and as yet unadapted for trait of (comparitivey) 
: large concentrations of humans living together?  After all, it is widely 
: agreed that that land being used in agriculture can support a higher 
: number of people than land that is being used in a hunter and gatherer 
: type lifestyle.
:    The highter the concentration of humans living in any particular area, 
: the higher the chance of plague.

There can be little doubt that disease played a part, but examination
of the bones of the agriculturalists show serious nutritional
deficiencies.

Further, it is not clear that the first agricultural sites had populations
larger than those in hunter-gatherer bands.  We're not talking about
many hundreds of people.

Humans are omnivores.  This is clear from their dentation and digestive
tracts.  Deprive them of meat and they will not do well at all.  This
DOES NOT mean that meat is universally good for us -- after all, we are
not designed to live forever.  Today we can overcome some of the problems
associated with eating meat because we have a greater understanding of
the nutritional issues involved.  We do not understand it all.

Lastly, let me stress my point (the one that got me started on all of
this):  Blind assumption that our food today is WORSE than it was in
the past is unjustified.  We all tend to long for the glorious days of
yesteryear that never were.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 03:48:12 GMT

so you are trying to say we have evolved to need and use fat?  That is an 
interesting point.  Could it be just the same as losing the ability to 
synthesize vitamin C because of its great abundance?  Is that why it 
seems how many people crave fats?  Does that mean that one cannot live 
without fats?  

[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Jeff Gonzales - Computer Science Major   |  Amiga 3000 : 6mb RAM, 200mb HD ]
[ Johnston Center, University of Redlands  |  1950 multisync, 88mb SyQuest   ]
[ "Where the hell is Redlands?"		   |  PP14400FXMT v.32bis, 2286 BB   ]
[ (909) 307-7443 dorm (909) 683-6747 home  |  ------------------------------ ]
[ Internet:[email-masked]         |  Because I am an individual,    ] 
[          [email-masked]         |  not just a biological unit.    ]
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 03:53:06 GMT

You are absolutely correct about morning for yesteryears that never 
were.  We have never seen the future to know what it is like and can only 
assume that sometime in our past things were better than what they are in 
the present.  Perhaps that is what now confuses me, in that I assumed 
that people years ago had better diets than what we do now.  I misused 
the term "stone-age" when I should I have said "Garden of Eden-age", a 
time that perhaps never was...

You state that our bodies are designed to be omnivorous.  How does a long 
digestive tract digest meats?  I have noticed that, after not eating meat 
for several months, that eating meat gives me "acidic" feelings in my 
stomach, and has caused several cold sores to develop in my mouth.  Am I 
crazy or is this a sign that meats weren't designed for our systems?  I'm 
not trying to flame, just learn, so don't take offense to anything I have 
said.  Thanks.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jack Campin)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 11:34:02 GMT

[email-masked] (Mordea) wrote:
>: increased.  The life span went down, disease went up.
> You seem to be tying the change in diet to the downward change in life span.
> But isn't just as likely that the increase in disease came about due to the
> new and as yet unadapted for trait of (comparatively) large concentrations
> of humans living together?

Another factor: social hierarchy and inequalities in wealth.  Hunter-
gatherer societies are far more egalitarian than agricultural ones;
settled neolithic societies mostly developed caste systems, reaching
an extreme in the big islands of Polynesia, where the chiefs were so
much fatter than commoners that a visiting space alien would have taken
them for members of a different species.

There have been some studies recently (I forget the references) on the
nutrition and health of the ancient Britons before and after the Romans
left.  Nutritional status and health dramatically improved after the
Empire and most of its associated class system had gone.  And of course
the Scottish Highlands since the Clearances are a dramatic example of
the reverse - a society where agricultural producers were pushed into
crowded strips of poor coastal land, and the population going into a
long crash for two centuries as economic inequality increased to its
present level.

Any system where a large fraction of a farmer's output goes to feed
an elite is going to be nutritionally less efficient than an anarchy.
As well as the up-front loss to members of the productive class, a
hierarchic system will have to shift production to foods capable of
surviving transport and/or storage, which means reduced vitamin C,
A and E intake, and is likely to lose a lot of stored food anyway,
with centralized storage being more prone to catastrophic failure from
fire, blight, vermin or warfare.

-- 
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
   Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4195         HOME: 031 556 5272        FAX: 031 451 3431
INTERNET: [email-masked]   BITNET: via UKACRL   BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Bloch)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 09:22:37 -0400

Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales <[email-masked]> wrote:
>crazy or is this a sign that meats weren't designed for our systems?
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm going to assume Jeff meant this the other way around. :-)

My impression is that cold sores often result from ANY sudden change in
diet.  As for the heartburn, see below about "a different balance of acids
and enzymes".

I've heard from long-distance wilderness travellers that the first meat
after months without it caused hangovers.  Personally, I find that the
first meat after months without it makes me constipated and sleepy.  So
what does all this mean?

I think concluding that human digestive tracts are "not meant" to handle
meat is a little too strong.  Digesting meat requires a different balance
of acids and enzymes in the stomach than does digesting a vegetarian diet
(and no, I don't know the details).  I can easily imagine our ancestors
evolving a digestive tract which, after a protracted meatless period,
"learns" that meat is not coming and therefore changes its chemistry, only
to change it again after meat reappears in the diet.  For all I know, the
same could happen with many other foods.

-- 
					Stephen Bloch
				     [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Bloch)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 09:59:07 -0400

>one did the best one could.

These two paragraphs seem somewhat contradictory.  The first implies a
preference for meat, resorting to vegetables when the hunt failed; the
second implies a preference for plants, resorting to meat when most plant
foods were out of season.  Recent, politically correct anthropological
research favors the latter view.  I'm not enough of an anthropologist to
judge this research's quality.

>be the conventional point of view in anthropology.

Note that Paul hasn't actually suggested a causal link between lower meat
consumption and lower lifespan.  As already pointed out, some other
plausible causes are
1) larger groups of people living in close proximity and therefore spreading
infectious disease,
2) people living in one place surrounded by piles of their own waste and
therefore spreading infectious disease, and
3) agricultural communities developing greater economic disparities and
therefore creating "diseases of poverty".

I should also point out that disease doesn't necessarily correlate
negatively with lifespan.  For example, when predators become less common
and people learn to nurse one another through diseases, people can live
long enough to acquire other diseases.

-- 
					Stephen Bloch
				     [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (SDunavan)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 11:46:01 -0400

In spite of recent (politically correct) studies of hunter-gatherers
that emphasize plant foods that have been historically overlooked
(because they don't preserve as well as bones, because they were
often lower-status foods, because male anthropologists focused on
men's hunting), most anthropologists still find that "traditional"
peoples prefer (and historically have preferred) certain kinds of
meat over almost all plant foods.  This pattern is especially well
documented among hunter-gatherers (or to be more politically correct,
gatherer-hunters).  The classic reference,  for !Kung San (in
southern Africa) diet is:

       Lee, Richard B., 1979, The !Kung San:  Men, Women, and Work in
a Foraging Society.  Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

       I heard Lee give a lecture in which he described cravings for
fat among the !Kung (and among anthropologists that had also been
away from their usual diet); people were opening cans of meat and
scooping the congealed fat off the top and eating it like ice cream. 
People do seem to have an inherent craving for fat.  An archaeologist
that I work with at Univ. of Michigan has done more in depth studies
on how hunters (even in lean seasons) get enough fat in their diet:

      Speth, John, and Katherine A. Spielmann,  1983,  Energy Source,

Protein Metabolism, and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Strategies.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 1-31.

Obviously, our cravings for fat (and meat in general) can be
fulfilled in ways that our ancestors never dreamed, with medical
consequences that are still just becoming understood.   Sandy Dunavan

---

From: VINCENT@ERICH (Pete Vincent)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 20:22:54 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
` 
` Note that Paul hasn't actually suggested a causal link between lower meat
` consumption and lower lifespan.  As already pointed out, some other
` plausible causes are
` 1) larger groups of people living in close proximity and therefore spreading
` infectious disease,
` 2) people living in one place surrounded by piles of their own waste and
` therefore spreading infectious disease, and
` 3) agricultural communities developing greater economic disparities and
` therefore creating "diseases of poverty".
` 
Another factor that I've seen suggested: those people weren't at all
educated in nutrition. If they found a way to survive growing grain,
they would go for it, being that it made a food supply more reliable 
than the vagueries of hunter-gathering. Their diet might then become
almost exclusively dependent on one or two grains, plus the occasional
domestic animal. This would be far more restricted than the wide ranging
diet garnered from fortuitous h-g'ing, and would likely entail many
nutritional deficiencies. 

Furthermore, I'm not sure where Paul gets his evidence that transition
from h-g to agriculture results in lower meat consumption. How can
it be demonstrated that h-g culture had a higher meat intake?

==========================================================================
    [email-masked]   <== faster       %    Pete Vincent
    [email-masked]      % Disclaimer: all I know I
                                         % learned from reading Usenet.

---

From: [email-masked] (Doug Hoffman)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 20:22:04 GMT

There was a recent TV show on PBS in which an anthropologist demonstrated
how humans might have found a significant portion of their caloric
requirements in animal fat.  It seems that animal carcasses often are left
with the bones intact, allowing humans, once the predator(s) involved have
departed, the opportunity to crack open the bones and dine on the marrow
contained there in. The anthropologist type estimated that one typical
antelope whould provide enough marrow for two proto-humans. Since marrow is
quite high in fat content perhaps we did evolve to eat fat. Fat (though not necessarily animal fat) is needed for the absorption of some vitamins (D).

Regards,
Doug

=============================================================================
Doug L. Hoffman                 |  University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
3213 NC 62 East                 |  [email-masked]
Liberty, NC  27298              |  Work: (919) 962-1883, Home: (919) 565-4845
=============================================================================
"Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety
    and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals
        and unequals alike"
                                                     Plato, _The Republic_

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 20:28:35 GMT

You could be very right as far as undergoing discomfort when changing 
diets.  I find that whenever I eat meats or fatty foods (including 
olives, olive oil, avocadoes, etc...) I become sleepy.  As far as the 
cold sores, I have had them occur throughout my years as a youth.  After 
changing my diet, I cannot recall getting them at all (except when I 
tried eating meat again).  I would believe that these sores are an 
attempt at removing the acids produced through the digestion of meats.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 20:32:56 GMT

Could these cravings for fat be a method of keeping humans in constant 
motion, to keep them going on a continual search for food?  Would the 
only people to be affected by such a craving be those who depended on 
hunting?  Could fat, as addicting as it has been portrayed, be considered 
a drug?

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 00:01:17 GMT

Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales ([email-masked]) wrote:

: so you are trying to say we have evolved to need and use fat?  That is an 
: interesting point.  Could it be just the same as losing the ability to 
: synthesize vitamin C because of its great abundance?  Is that why it 
: seems how many people crave fats?  Does that mean that one cannot live 
: without fats?  

Yes, I guess I am saying that.  It's implicit in the fact that we
are omnivores and with the possible exception of insects (not my
favorite food) most of the other animal matter we eat contains fat.
So we have evolved to tolerate it and use it.  It is, after all, the
most efficient energy source, calories per ounce, in the body.  

I think that there is an important point in Jeff's message here.  Some
of us do crave fats.  But when you mix fat and sugar, you get a
dynamite mixture that almost all of us crave.  Chocolate is perhaps
the prime example.  And sugar was certainly not a direct item in
early man's diet.  With the exception of the occasional honey bee
hive, there was no direct access.  So the fact that (for most of
us) it tastes so good has got to be an evolutionary accident.  And
one (as I chew another bon-bon and sip my cocoa :-) that may do
us in...

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 00:08:59 GMT

Jack Campin ([email-masked]) wrote:

 [stuff by me (PJG) about health declining when people became 
   agricultural deleted]

: Another factor: social hierarchy and inequalities in wealth.  Hunter-
: gatherer societies are far more egalitarian than agricultural ones;
: settled neolithic societies mostly developed caste systems, reaching
: an extreme in the big islands of Polynesia, where the chiefs were so
: much fatter than commoners that a visiting space alien would have taken
: them for members of a different species.

There is no doubt that this is correct.  I was speaking about the
earliest agricultural communities (in the middle east) which is where
the evidence that I've read about comes from.  Those communities were
rather small, a very few hundred people at most.

: There have been some studies recently (I forget the references) on the
: nutrition and health of the ancient Britons before and after the Romans
: left.  Nutritional status and health dramatically improved after the
: Empire and most of its associated class system had gone.  And of course
: the Scottish Highlands since the Clearances are a dramatic example of
: the reverse - a society where agricultural producers were pushed into
: crowded strips of poor coastal land, and the population going into a
: long crash for two centuries as economic inequality increased to its
: present level.

: Any system where a large fraction of a farmer's output goes to feed
: an elite is going to be nutritionally less efficient than an anarchy.
: As well as the up-front loss to members of the productive class, a
: hierarchic system will have to shift production to foods capable of
: surviving transport and/or storage, which means reduced vitamin C,
: A and E intake, and is likely to lose a lot of stored food anyway,
: with centralized storage being more prone to catastrophic failure from
: fire, blight, vermin or warfare.

Right on.  No argument.  In fact, I can give you another example.  
The great 12th century expansion in western Europe was probably
due to the fact that much forest land was converted to farm land,
peasants were relatively free (compared to previous centuries) to
raise what they wished, and the resulting surpluses provoked both
economic growth (the cathedrals are still with us) and a population
explosion.  Of course, that didn't help much in the long run, but
that's another story.

      ----- Paul J. Gans   [[email-masked]]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 00:15:14 GMT

Stephen Bloch ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Paul J. Gans <[email-masked]> wrote:

: >To start with, stone-age man was NOT agrarian.  He and she were
: >primarily hunter-gatherers subsisting on quantities of meat when
: >that was available and what could be found when meat wasn't.  The
: >meat was not well-prepared, it was often infested with parasites
: >(and possibly spoiled as well), and certainly not fat free.  
: >
: >We know (from plant remains) some of the vegetables eaten by stone
: >age man.  These were gathered as found.  When not found (winter)
: >one did the best one could.

: These two paragraphs seem somewhat contradictory.  The first implies a
: preference for meat, resorting to vegetables when the hunt failed; the
: second implies a preference for plants, resorting to meat when most plant
: foods were out of season.  Recent, politically correct anthropological
: research favors the latter view.  I'm not enough of an anthropologist to
: judge this research's quality.

Sorry, mixed my meaning.  By "the best one could" I meant the roots,
grass, and stone soup route.  My understanding is that meat is the
preferred food, people taking to plants only if meat is not available.

: >When agriculture first became common, an interesting thing happened.
: >The consumption of meat decreased, the consumption of vegetables
: >increased.  The life span went down, disease went up.  Seems strange
: >that this should be so, but it is (at least that is what seems to
: >be the conventional point of view in anthropology.

: Note that Paul hasn't actually suggested a causal link between lower meat
: consumption and lower lifespan.  As already pointed out, some other
: plausible causes are
: 1) larger groups of people living in close proximity and therefore spreading
: infectious disease,
: 2) people living in one place surrounded by piles of their own waste and
: therefore spreading infectious disease, and
: 3) agricultural communities developing greater economic disparities and
: therefore creating "diseases of poverty".

I agree, but I'd argue that there is a link although imperfect.  Meat
is the major source of the amino acids needed to produce protein in the
body.  Without it, and lacking substitutes (one can use proper vegetables)
one *will* be in trouble.  Stunted growth is the most common symptom, as
is lowered disease resistance, though I'd be hard put to give a source
for this last statement.  (My memory is going -- too much meat?)

: I should also point out that disease doesn't necessarily correlate
: negatively with lifespan.  For example, when predators become less common
: and people learn to nurse one another through diseases, people can live
: long enough to acquire other diseases.

Yup.  Agreed.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 00:22:53 GMT

Pete Vincent (VINCENT@ERICH) wrote:

: Furthermore, I'm not sure where Paul gets his evidence that transition
: from h-g to agriculture results in lower meat consumption. How can
: it be demonstrated that h-g culture had a higher meat intake?

It's tucked away in anthropology texts and is now relatively well known.
I think there was even a Scientific American article about the fall-off
in health a few years back.  

Hunter-gatherers ate mostly meat.  This can be told from the relative
number of bones to vegetable matter in middens, caves, etc.  Of course,
as has been pointed out, the vegetable matter doesn't keep as well as
the bones (most of which have been cracked open to get at the marrow)
but that's what we are told.  Early agriculturalists had essentially
no easy source of meat except for the occasional pig.  

This situation was repeated in the early middle ages in Western Europe
where peasants ate very little meat even though they may have had a
few hens (for eggs) and a pig or two.  They ate so much stone ground
flour that their teeth are noticeably worn down from the stone dust
that ended up in the bread.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Zetland)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 19:33:35 -0700

Paul J. Gans ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Pete Vincent (VINCENT@ERICH) wrote:

: : Furthermore, I'm not sure where Paul gets his evidence that transition
: : from h-g to agriculture results in lower meat consumption. How can
: : it be demonstrated that h-g culture had a higher meat intake?

: It's tucked away in anthropology texts and is now relatively well known.
: I think there was even a Scientific American article about the fall-off
: in health a few years back.  

: Hunter-gatherers ate mostly meat.  This can be told from the relative
: number of bones to vegetable matter in middens, caves, etc.  Of course,
: as has been pointed out, the vegetable matter doesn't keep as well as
: the bones (most of which have been cracked open to get at the marrow)
: but that's what we are told.  Early agriculturalists had essentially
: no easy source of meat except for the occasional pig.  

: This situation was repeated in the early middle ages in Western Europe
: where peasants ate very little meat even though they may have had a
: few hens (for eggs) and a pig or two.  They ate so much stone ground
: flour that their teeth are noticeably worn down from the stone dust
: that ended up in the bread.

:      ----- Paul J. Gans   [[email-masked]]

---

From: [email-masked] (Cath Lawrence)
Date: 21 Jun 94 17:02:54 +1000

> seems how many people crave fats?  Does that mean that one cannot live 

I thought that the reason we like fat, sugar and salt is that in a
hunter/gatherer lifestyle, or for our primate relatives, these foods aren't
found in high enough quantities to be a problem. Fat and sugar are both high
energy sources, so they taste good to us. But we didn't need an "off"
switch for our desire for these foods until relatively recently.

I'm fairly sure that we could not live without fat, either - I vaguely recall 
something about brain chemistry  problems being a symptom of fat deficiency. 
And I know it's very dangerous to give babies a low-fat low-cholesterol diet.

cheers
Cath

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 13:34:15 GMT

>: seems how many people crave fats?  Does that mean that one cannot live 

A certain amount of fat must be eaten and kept on the body to ensure
good balances of fat soluble vitamins. We have to have some fat in the
diet. Most of us have grown up eating fat in sufficient quantity to
survive daily heavy manual labour, and life in poorly heated and
cooled homes. When I was on a bike trip, riding for six hours every
day, I was slowly starving on my low fat vegetarian diet. Even
tripling the amount I was eating, I was still losing weight.

The figure I have seen for an appropriate amount of fat for
the normal fairly sedentary, warmed in winter, cooled in summer
person is 25-30% of calories. The bulk of calories should come
from carbohydrates, and a fairly small percentage from proteins.
Again, I can give some references for this information, and some
of the reasoning behind these percentages, but it will take time to
type in, is probably available somewhere close to you, and seems
off topic for this group.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 13:45:46 GMT

>And I know it's very dangerous to give babies a low-fat low-cholesterol diet.

A low fat diet can lead to failure to thrive babies, cholestrol is necessary
for the myelination (covering) of nerves. A baby will sit, crawl, then
walk as the process of myelination is completed.

sph

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Gorski)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 15:33:21 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>And sugar was certainly not a direct item in
>us) it tastes so good has got to be an evolutionary accident. 
...

Hmmm.  Maybe I'm taking you out of context here Paul, but what about fruit?
I can imagine wild fruits being part of the hunter-gatherer diet.  The sugars
make an excellent fuel:  readily convertible in case of immediate need, and
storable as fat during times aplenty.  Additionally, certain fruits contain
vitamin C, which the human (and perhaps proto-human) body cannot synthesize,
and without which our ancestors would never have walked upright :-)

In short, I can see why humans and indeed most large animals would develope
a taste for sugars.

>     ----  Paul J. Gans   [[email-masked]]

--Tom Gorski

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Bloch)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 15:15:00 -0400

Tom Gorski <[email-masked]> wrote:
>I can imagine wild fruits being part of the hunter-gatherer diet.

That was my thought too, especially considering that ALL of our closest
surviving relatives (the great apes), and I believe most primates, eat
large amounts of fruit in their natural habitats.  Since most fruits
increase in sugar content with ripeness, a taste for sugar would have the
effect of training primates to prefer ripe fruit.  It has also been argued
that primates' color vision evolved to distinguish ripe from unripe fruit.

(Incidentally, there was probably some co-evolution going on here: it is in
the primate's evolutionary interest to eat fruits that have had time to
develop their full vitamin content, while it is in the plant's evolutionary
interest to not have the fruit eaten until the seed inside is mature.)

Of course, all that is mainly about fructose.  The fact that sucrose tastes
sweeter to us than fructose might well be an evolutionary accident: they're
detected by the same kind of detectors on the tongue, but one molecule of
sucrose produces twice as many detectable ions as one molecule of fructose.
So while it might not be in early primates' interest to like sucrose, it
probably wasn't worth the evolutionary trouble to develop tastebuds that
could distinguish it from fructose.

-- 
					Stephen Bloch
				     [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jack Campin)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 19:19:25 GMT

[email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman) wrote:
> for the myelination (covering) of nerves.

You need cholesterol, yes.  You don't need to eat it.  Nobody, of any age,
needs cholesterol in their diet.  None.  Not one solitary milligram.  Your
body makes it from precursors it is impossible to run short of without
starving to death.

Most babies in the First World get far more fat than they need, as a result
of the mismatch between their metabolic needs and those of the young of the
usual species they get milk from.

---

From: VINCENT@ERICH (Pete Vincent)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 20:09:35 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

` Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales ([email-masked]) wrote:
` 
` : so you are trying to say we have evolved to need and use fat?  That is an 
` : interesting point.  Could it be just the same as losing the ability to 
` : synthesize vitamin C because of its great abundance?  Is that why it 
` : seems how many people crave fats?  Does that mean that one cannot live 
` : without fats?  
` 
` Yes, I guess I am saying that.  It's implicit in the fact that we
` are omnivores and with the possible exception of insects (not my
` favorite food) most of the other animal matter we eat contains fat.
` So we have evolved to tolerate it and use it.  It is, after all, the
` most efficient energy source, calories per ounce, in the body.  
` 

Let me give a somewhat authoritive answer on the subject of fats, as
I have a brother with considerable knowledge in the field, he having
founded a company to manufacture oils for the health food market.
There are only two essential fats known which cannot be synthesized 
by a healthy human with an otherwise adequate diet. These are linolenic
and linoleic acids, the root reflecting linseed, or flax, which is
the primary natural source. They are also found in the seeds of other
cold climate plants. As most animals use these fats to manufacture
nerve cell walls and various other products, they retain little of these
fats in the native state. In fact the only significant animal source
is from some cold water fish. The cold connection is due to the low
congealing point of these oils, which remain liquid below the freezing
point of water, a useful feature in cold climates.

While we are perfectly capable of utilizing fat directly from dietary 
sources, we are also able to build our own, excluding those noted,from 
starches and sugars. This is why people can get fat from a low fat but 
high carbohydrate diet. And a further point: a craving for fat may be
conditioned, not inborn. I personally have no craving at all, in fact
conversely, I naturally avoid fats as generally unpleasant. I believe
this is partly due to my childhood diet being relatively low in fats.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 22:19:47 GMT

>usual species they get milk from.

Cholestrol is available in fairly high concentrations in breastmilk. 
It appears to have some reason for being there. Interestingly enough,
human breastmilk delivers about 40% of total calories from fat, packaged
up with lipase to complement and augment the babies lipase. I suspect
maternal cholestrol supplements the infants ability to produce
cholestrol. And yes the kind and amount of fat in infant formulas
is less than ideal for human infants. 

sph

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 00:36:03 GMT

Tom Gorski ([email-masked]) wrote:

: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

: >And sugar was certainly not a direct item in
: >early man's diet.  With the exception of the occasional honey bee
: >hive, there was no direct access.  So the fact that (for most of
: >us) it tastes so good has got to be an evolutionary accident. 
: ...

: Hmmm.  Maybe I'm taking you out of context here Paul, but what about fruit?
: I can imagine wild fruits being part of the hunter-gatherer diet.  The sugars
: make an excellent fuel:  readily convertible in case of immediate need, and
: storable as fat during times aplenty.  Additionally, certain fruits contain
: vitamin C, which the human (and perhaps proto-human) body cannot synthesize,
: and without which our ancestors would never have walked upright :-)

: In short, I can see why humans and indeed most large animals would develope
: a taste for sugars.

You got me.  I completely forgot about fruits.  My basic point is that
we find the fat-sugar mixture difficult to resist (having given up his
bon-bons, our writer now reaches for the *rich* chocolate cake with the
smoooooth, creamy icing  ;-)

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 06:03:40 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>most efficient energy source, calories per ounce, in the body.  

Efficient in the sense that you are getting more bang for the buck, 
right?  Sure, you get more energy per ounce, but that energy cannot be 
used for all tasks.  Is this a good point to mention fast/slow twitch 
musle tissues?  Quick bursts of activity and brain usage require carbs, 
right?

>one (as I chew another bon-bon and sip my cocoa :-) that may do

This is a scary thought.  So can this mixture be considered a drug?  It 
would be a chemical solution, right?  In wildlife, you can find fats, and 
you can find sugars (sugar cane, honey, etc...), but what ever made 
people develop ice cream?  How did this mixing of fats and sugars come 
about?  Is there proof this causes damage to our systems?

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 06:11:17 GMT

Can someone elaborate on brain chemistry problems as a result of low fat 
diets?

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 06:12:43 GMT

Would anyone recommend eating bone marrow now?

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 06:15:23 GMT

Was that data on the composition of human breast milk taken from 
civilised Western cultures or more primitive ones?

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandra P. Hoffman)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 13:48:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>civilised Western cultures or more primitive ones?

Most of the data on composition of human breastmilk is cross cultural.

sph

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephan Zielinski)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 19:37:31 GMT

>crazy or is this a sign that meats weren't designed for our systems?  

Evolution does not "design" anything for anything else.  Steven Jay
Gould beats this point to death in "The Panda's Thumb," which is a
collections of essays he wrote for the magazine _Natural History._ 

Primates are omnivores.  However, every primate in the world but us
gets the bulk of their calories from plant products.  They eat meat
when and as it becomes availible-- often in the form of carrion and
insects.  It's possible that first worlders eat "too much" meat, but
hoe much is "too much" is not clear.

Pure carnivores have relatively short digestive tracts.  As primates
evolved from critters that ate more plants than animals, we have
relatively long digestive tracts.

As other posters have pointed out, "cold sores" and digestive upset
often accompany major changes in diet.

My own personal feeling is that my ancestors did not claw their way to
the top of the food chain for me to eat lettuce.  :-)

-- 
Stephan Zielinski                         [email-masked]
  Pyramid OSx & DC/OSx. Sequent DYNIX/ptx. IBM AIX. HP/UX. SGI IRIX.
			   My brain hurts.

---

From: [email-masked] (John E. Taylor III)
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 07:35:06 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, VINCENT@ERICH (Pete Vincent)
wrote:

> high carbohydrate diet.

I've been waiting for somebody to mention "rabbit starvation" in this
thread.  This has been reported in people trying to survive the winter on
wild game and foraged vegetables, roots and the like, where the rabbits
killed for food carried insufficient fat to supply the needs of the human
body.  The body appears to break down muscle cells when it runs out of its
own fat supply, just to get enough food to synthesize fat.  Of course, in a
situation like this, the supply of carbohydrates would also be seriously
inadequate.

--
John Taylor    (W3ZID)     |  "The opinions expressed are those of the
[email-masked] |   writer and not of Rohm and Haas Company."

---

From: "David Herron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:24:14 GMT

...
>  Pyramid OSx & DC/OSx. Sequent DYNIX/ptx. IBM AIX. HP/UX. SGI IRIX.

That's an awfully human-centric viewpoint.

What makes you think you're at the top of the food chain?

What eats your body after you're dead?

(The fact that many of us largely remove ourselves from the food chain by
being buried the way we generally are buried is source for some interesting
thinking...)

Is there a `top' to the food chain?

<- David Herron <[email-masked]> (work) <[email-masked]> (home)
<-
<- It's much more lucrative to keep the Mantra of the people somewhere in
<- the realm of "Why ask why?" instead of "I Am the Light".        WAKE UP!

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 24 Jun 94 22:41:00 GMT

PJG> There can be little doubt that disease played a part, but examination
PJG> of the bones of the agriculturalists show serious nutritional
PJG> deficiencies.

Which deficiencies, specifically?

PJG> Humans are omnivores.  This is clear from their dentation and
PJG> digestive tracts.  Deprive them of meat and they will not do well at
PJG> all.  This DOES NOT mean that meat is universally good for us -- after
PJG> all, we are not designed to live forever.  Today we can overcome some
PJG> of the problems associated with eating meat because we have a greater
PJG> understanding of the nutritional issues involved.  We do not understand
PJG> it all. 

This is untrue. Humans "deprived" of meat can do perfectly well, both
nutritionally and healthily. (Now, try depriving a human of vegetables
and fruits if you really want to see some nutritional deficiencies!)
Repeated studies of vegetarians show no problems related to a vegetarian 
diet. The only deficiences are B12 lack among strict vegans (who eat
no eggs or dairy products), and beri-beri among populations (such
as in Asia) where all vegetable products are eaten *cooked*.

We need a certain amount of protein, which
can be obtained from vegetable sources. The fact that we are omnivores
means we are able to eat meat, but it does not mean we *must* eat meat.
Certainly, it doesn't mean that we need even close to the amount of
meat the average modern Westerner consumes.

Carnivores have short, smooth digestive tracts. They need to get raw
meat into their systems and back out quickly so it doesn't go bad.
Humans have longer, more meandering digestive systems. We are adapted
to eating a predominately plant-based diet; we can also consume meat
and obtain nutrition from it.

No, I am not a vegetarian. But I am also perfectly aware that eating
meat on a regular basis has no justification except "it tastes good."
You can easily eat a healthy, nutritional diet that does not regularly
include meat. This is how "stone-age" humans lived, after all; lots
of gathered (and later, farmed) plant matter, supplemented with
occasional meat.

PJG> Lastly, let me stress my point (the one that got me started on all of
PJG> this):  Blind assumption that our food today is WORSE than it was in
PJG> the past is unjustified.  We all tend to long for the glorious days of
PJG> yesteryear that never were.

Well, not *all*. I would not say that our food today is "worse" than
at some unspecified time in the past. We have some unfortunate trends
in nutrition, i.e. our vastly increased consumption of animal
proteins and fats, coupled with a vast decrease in complex carbohydrates.
We also have some *great* improvements: sanitation, refrigeration,
safe shipping, pasteurization, knowledge about food bacteria,
micronutrient supplementation, etc.

... Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 29 Jun 1994 21:01:10 GMT

I agree with much that Laurel Halbany wrote, but the quoting below
can get complex.  I'll try to keep it simple:

: PJG> There can be little doubt that disease played a part, but examination
: PJG> of the bones of the agriculturalists show serious nutritional
: PJG> deficiencies.

: Which deficiencies, specifically?

I'll have to look it up.  I'll post on this soon.  There was, if I
remember, an article on this within the last few years in the Scientific
American.

: PJG> Humans are omnivores.  This is clear from their dentation and
: PJG> digestive tracts.  Deprive them of meat and they will not do well at
: PJG> all.  This DOES NOT mean that meat is universally good for us -- after
: PJG> all, we are not designed to live forever.  Today we can overcome some
: PJG> of the problems associated with eating meat because we have a greater
: PJG> understanding of the nutritional issues involved.  We do not understand
: PJG> it all. 

: This is untrue. Humans "deprived" of meat can do perfectly well, both
: nutritionally and healthily. (Now, try depriving a human of vegetables
: and fruits if you really want to see some nutritional deficiencies!)
: Repeated studies of vegetarians show no problems related to a vegetarian 
: diet. The only deficiences are B12 lack among strict vegans (who eat
: no eggs or dairy products), and beri-beri among populations (such
: as in Asia) where all vegetable products are eaten *cooked*.

Of course, we can do well as vegetarians TODAY.  But (as you yourself
have indicated) that has not always been the case.  Indeed, I would think
that a lack of nutritional knowledge (who knew what B12 was in 1066) would
mean that pure vegans prior to the 20'th century would be in serious
trouble.  Also:  animals that are herbivores do NOT eat milk or egg
products.  They are adapted to either obtain the nutrients they need
from their food or they can produce the nutrients internally.  We can't.

: We need a certain amount of protein, which
: can be obtained from vegetable sources. The fact that we are omnivores
: means we are able to eat meat, but it does not mean we *must* eat meat.
: Certainly, it doesn't mean that we need even close to the amount of
: meat the average modern Westerner consumes.

: Carnivores have short, smooth digestive tracts. They need to get raw
: meat into their systems and back out quickly so it doesn't go bad.
: Humans have longer, more meandering digestive systems. We are adapted
: to eating a predominately plant-based diet; we can also consume meat
: and obtain nutrition from it.

We are NOT carnivores.  We are omnivores.  We are adapted to (and need
to) eat meat in order to survive.  Because we are intelligent (mostly)
we can work around these natural restrictions and utilize a pure vegan
diet IF WE ARE CAREFUL.  Not the sort of thing that my buddy Ug the
cave man was good at.

: No, I am not a vegetarian. But I am also perfectly aware that eating
: meat on a regular basis has no justification except "it tastes good."
: You can easily eat a healthy, nutritional diet that does not regularly
: include meat. This is how "stone-age" humans lived, after all; lots
: of gathered (and later, farmed) plant matter, supplemented with
: occasional meat.

Can't argue with this.  You are quite right.

: PJG> Lastly, let me stress my point (the one that got me started on all of
: PJG> this):  Blind assumption that our food today is WORSE than it was in
: PJG> the past is unjustified.  We all tend to long for the glorious days of
: PJG> yesteryear that never were.

: Well, not *all*. I would not say that our food today is "worse" than
: at some unspecified time in the past. We have some unfortunate trends
: in nutrition, i.e. our vastly increased consumption of animal
: proteins and fats, coupled with a vast decrease in complex carbohydrates.
: We also have some *great* improvements: sanitation, refrigeration,
: safe shipping, pasteurization, knowledge about food bacteria,
: micronutrient supplementation, etc.

I'm not saying that overconsumption of animal fat and meat is good for
us.  We have two different discussions going on here.  One was originally
about whether we NEED to eat meat.  From an evolutionary standpoint I
say yes, we do (but see my discussion above about a modern vegan diet.)
The other was about the supposed health benefits of a stone-age diet.
That's where the assumption that our food today is worse than it was
yesterday got started.  I'm not at all disagreeing with your paragraph
quoted above.  In fact, I think that you and I disagree about very little.

---

From: [email-masked]. (bulka)
Date: 1 Jul 1994 08:56:50 GMT

Exactly.  If no one eats me, or my kind, and I eat everyhing else, I am
at the top of the food chain.  How else would you define it?

Unless you want to talk about bugs and bacteria and possibly carrion
eaters processing my corpse back into fertile soil.

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 3 Jul 94 10:31:00 GMT

-=> Quoting Jeff "crusader" Gonzales to All <=-

J"G> Can someone elaborate on brain chemistry problems as a result of low
J"G> fat  diets?

I don't know about direct "brain chemistry" problems, but vitamins
A, D, E, and K are soluble in fat (not water).

... We're not fence-sitters. We're bridge-builders.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 3 Jul 94 10:31:00 GMT

-=> Quoting Sdunavan to All <=-

Sd> In spite of recent (politically correct) studies of hunter-gatherers
Sd> that emphasize plant foods that have been historically overlooked
Sd> (because they don't preserve as well as bones, because they were
Sd> often lower-status foods, because male anthropologists focused on
Sd> men's hunting), most anthropologists still find that "traditional"
Sd> peoples prefer (and historically have preferred) certain kinds of
Sd> meat over almost all plant foods.  

This doesn't show anything about what sort of diet to which our bodies are
best adapted. Meat is favored in many cultures both for taste and
scarcity; it's much easier to pick fruit than to stalk an antelope.
Eating meat also frequently finds its way into ritual contexts.

Sd> This pattern is especially well
Sd> documented among hunter-gatherers (or to be more politically correct,
Sd> gatherer-hunters).  

Since when did "meat didn't constitute the majority of early human
diets" become PC? I always thought "politically correct" was supposed
to refer to a rigid, no-questions-allowed, pre-pack belief system.
Now, sadly, it has mutated into a synonym for "I don't like the vaguely
non-traditional thing you just said."

Sd> Obviously, our cravings for fat (and meat in general) can be
Sd> fulfilled in ways that our ancestors never dreamed, with medical
Sd> consequences that are still just becoming understood.   Sandy Dunavan

Exactly so.

... Though this may be play to you, 'tis death to us.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 3 Jul 94 10:31:00 GMT

PJG> Hunter-gatherers ate mostly meat.  This can be told from the relative
PJG> number of bones to vegetable matter in middens, caves, etc.  Of
PJG> course, as has been pointed out, the vegetable matter doesn't keep as
PJG> well as the bones (most of which have been cracked open to get at the
PJG> marrow) but that's what we are told.  

It seems pretty obvious, in your own admission, that "what we are told"
contradicts the evidence. Plant matter rots a lot quicker than bones do.

PJG> Early agriculturalists had
PJG> essentially no easy source of meat except for the occasional pig.  

Why not? Because they were not hunters? Surely agriculture does not
mean that *nobody* ever domesticates animals, sets traps, hunts,
or fishes. Especially in a coastal or island region, an agricultural
society (e.g. Japan) would rely on fishing rather than hunting.

PJG> This situation was repeated in the early middle ages in Western Europe
PJG> where peasants ate very little meat even though they may have had a
PJG> few hens (for eggs) and a pig or two.  They ate so much stone ground
PJG> flour that their teeth are noticeably worn down from the stone dust
PJG> that ended up in the bread.

Partly this was because much of the available meat (in the form of game)
was reserved for the use of the nobility. But what was the situation
of peasants in other parts of Europe, or of people in other parts of
the world?

... All great truths begin as blasphemies.  
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----

---

From: [email-masked] (Keith F. Lynch)
Date: 3 Jul 1994 23:22:46 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Laurel Halbany <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It seems pretty obvious, ... that "what we are told" contradicts the
> evidence. Plant matter rots a lot quicker than bones do.

I've read that it's possible to tell what proportion of protein a person
got from animal sources, by measuring the nitrogen isotope ratio of the
remains.  Has this been done?

(Of course it works just as well on living subjects, and could perhaps be
used to give insurance discounts to vegetarians, with no possibility of
cheating.)
-- 
Keith Lynch, [email-masked]

f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q  s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 4 Jul 1994 17:53:09 GMT

: PJG> Early agriculturalists had
: PJG> essentially no easy source of meat except for the occasional pig.  

: Why not? Because they were not hunters? Surely agriculture does not
: mean that *nobody* ever domesticates animals, sets traps, hunts,
: or fishes. Especially in a coastal or island region, an agricultural
: society (e.g. Japan) would rely on fishing rather than hunting.

On coastal or island regions, I would expect that fishing would provide
an important source of protein.  However, would such communities farm
extensively?  Farming is hard work.  But this is a side issue.  Most
humans did not live in a coastal or island region.

Agriculture was (and is) a difficult endeavor.  Crops need to be tended,
weeds removed, water brought, etc.  A very important item is fertilizer.
Without it fields rapidly become unproductive, necessitating a move by
the populace to some other area.  What distinguishes the dawn of
agriculture from earlier strategies of living is not that non-agricul-
turists never grew crops.  They did, and harvested them, and moved on.
They saw little point in lingering because the next year's crops would
be much smaller than this year's crops.

Agriculturalists stayed put.  To do this they had to devise some rather
interesting technologies.  Most important for this discussion they had
to devise crop rotation -- allowing a field to lie fallow for a period
of time so that nutrients could accumulate.

Why didn't they fertilize?  This is an interesting point.  They did.
In the middle ages the home garden or vegetable plot was fertilized
with mostly human waste.  Why not use animal waste?  Aha!  Very very
few animals.  Why?  Because one couldn't raise enough grain to 
support more.  Why?  Because the field weren't fertilized.  See the
circularity of the trap?  Europe didn't get out of it until the
12-13th century.

It is important to realize that crop yeilds in western Europe in
the 11th century were about in a 1.6 or 1.8 ratio.  That is, for
every measure of seed, one harvested 1.6 to 1.8 measures.  Lousy
yeilds, and yeilds that only allowed barely enough food to live on,
and then only in good times.

And yet these yeilds are, most likely, *HIGH* compared to those of
earlier times. (We know the European situation from actual crop
records, although these are sketchy.)  By the 10th century there had
been many improvements in irrigation, plows, hoes, etc., and a
greater understanding (if not on a "scientific level") of what was
needed to get a good crop.

I really doubt if early farmers in, say Turkey, in 2000 BC did any
better.

So why didn't they supplement their food with hunted animals?  Easy.
Game stayed far far away from human settlements.  The region containing
the fields, fallow or planted, were barren of all but the smallest
animals.  Yes, rabbits, birds, etc., were available and were captured.
But the resulting diet was nevertheless poor in animal protein.

This is what I was alluding to when I wrote:

: PJG> This situation was repeated in the early middle ages in Western Europe
: PJG> where peasants ate very little meat even though they may have had a
: PJG> few hens (for eggs) and a pig or two.  They ate so much stone ground
: PJG> flour that their teeth are noticeably worn down from the stone dust
: PJG> that ended up in the bread.

: Partly this was because much of the available meat (in the form of game)
: was reserved for the use of the nobility. But what was the situation
: of peasants in other parts of Europe, or of people in other parts of
: the world?

And you are absolutely correct here.  The rest of the world?  Interesting.
China, after the conquest of the south, switched mainly to rice as a
staple (except in the north, which had the smaller population and stayed
with wheat.)  Poplulation density was high and animal protein was
largely lacking.  The heavy amounts of meat in US-Chinese cooking is
an artifact of being in the US.

India has had much the same problem.  High population density that
precludes the large-scale raising of meat animals and a belief system
that excludes cows from a significant portion of the population's diet
and excludes meat in toto from a portion of the remainer's diet.

The middle east has fared somewhat easier in this regard, but I don't
know too much about the early standard diet.

I think what was curious about European development is that by the
sixth century, AD, large portions of western Europe were vacant.  Much
of this was in forest land, some of the remainder in fens, swamps, etc.
And the Germanic tribes had a long tradition of herding cattle (and a
corresponding tolerence in adults toward drinking milk.)  As a result
their peasant diet was probably richer in meat than was that of 
peasants elsewhere in the world, but as I've argued above, it still 
wasn't what we'd call a very *meaty* diet.

By the way, I fully agree with you about the overconsumption of meat
in today's diet.  We eat enough meat per capita in the USA each year
to feed an entire small French village in 1200 AD.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 6 Jul 1994 16:58:31 GMT

WHen you refer to brain chemistry problems, I assume you mean the chnical
composition of the brain and not the brain chemistry
itself....neurotransmitters are basiclaly modified amino acids--not fats. BUT.
One of the worst things adults do today to their small children in INSIST the
kids have very little fat in their diet.  Ib fact, mist children require some
lipis to form proper myelin sheaths around the neurons.  Myelin is the fat
ssecreted by cells in the brain that wraps around neurons and acts as a
insulating agent for the conduction of electrical signals in the brain. Just
like the coat around your typical wire does.  If there isn'yt enough
fat(actually cholesterol) in the diet, the sheath isn't formed in teh quantity
that it should be....problems arising from de-myelination today are multiple
sclerosis..that is not the same is lack of proper myelination in the
firstplace..I would imagine howver, that the problems are somewhat
similar--slower, more jerky movements, because there isn;t ebnough myelin to
propagate the signals fast enough.
Hope this helps
Efy Kokotos Leonardi
Biology Dept
NYUasjweous p;ocyc,uuioiIn article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Laurel
Halbany) writes:
>.... We're not fence-sitters. We're bridge-builders.
>___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
>
>----

---

From: [email-masked] (Laurel Halbany)
Date: 6 Jul 94 20:45:00 GMT

-=> Quoting Stephan Zielinski to All <=-

SZ> Primates are omnivores.  However, every primate in the world but us
SZ> gets the bulk of their calories from plant products.  They eat meat
SZ> when and as it becomes availible-- often in the form of carrion and
SZ> insects.  It's possible that first worlders eat "too much" meat, but
SZ> hoe much is "too much" is not clear.

According to current nutritional guidelines, you are eating "too much"
meat if your protein intake is over 15% and your fat intake is over
30%.

SZ> My own personal feeling is that my ancestors did not claw their way to
SZ> the top of the food chain for me to eat lettuce.  :-)

Your ancestors evolved in order to be able to eat primarily plant
products (yes, including lettuce) and some animal products. I doubt
they sat around dreaming of the day when their children's children
would benefit from their struggles by eating at Ruth's Chris... :*

My own personal feeling is that if I like the taste of meat, that ought
to be sufficient justification, and speculation about my ancestors'
struggles, the macho-ness of meat eating, or "incomplete" proteins
are poor excuses.

... The enemies of Freedom do not argue; they shout and they shoot.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff "Crusader" Gonzales)
Date: 7 Jul 1994 16:54:59 GMT

What is vitamin K?  What does it do and where does one get it?  As far as 
vitamins requiring fat, where would one who does not use oils to cook 
food get their supply?  Avocadoes?

"I support capital punishment...let's punish everyone in the capital!"

---

From: [email-masked] (John E. Taylor III)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 12:47:27 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Paul J.
Gans) wrote:

> I agree with much that Laurel Halbany wrote...
>
> : PJG> all.  .
> : LH> This is untrue. Humans "deprived" of meat can do perfectly well, both
> : LH> nutritionally and healthily.

Human beings "deprived" of meat can do well, _provided_ they pay particular
attention to the amino acid balance in their food, and provided they get
their B-12.  Just veggies, without attention to mixing legumes into the
diet, will leave you short of amino acids that human beings are incapable
of synthesizing.  Presumably the human body evolved without the capacity to
synthesize those amino acids because we _were_ omnivores.  As PJG says,

> PJG> Of course, we can do well as vegetarians TODAY.  But (as you yourself
> PJG> have indicated) that has not always been the case.  Indeed, I would think
> PJG> that a lack of nutritional knowledge (who knew what B12 was in 1066) would
> PJG> mean that pure vegans prior to the 20'th century would be in serious
> PJG> trouble.

> :LH> No, I am not a vegetarian. But I am also perfectly aware that eating
> :LH> meat on a regular basis has no justification except "it tastes good."

Oddly, I seem to have become _almost_ a vegetarian.  I still eat the
occasional serving of meat, and a fair amount of dairy products, but as I
age, I find that the meat is less appealing.  But I have to agree with Paul
that we're omnivores.

--
John Taylor    (W3ZID)     |  "The opinions expressed are those of the
[email-masked] |   writer and not of Rohm and Haas Company."

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephan Zielinski)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 18:40:16 GMT

>used to give insurance discounts to vegetarians, with no possibility of

Good plan.  After we implement that one, we can raise life insurance
rates for smokers, drinkers, people who live in urban areas and are
thus exposed to pollution, people who live in rural areas with
unreliable electricity (since their freezers may fail briefly in the
middle of the night, allowing bacteria to get a foothold);

People who have been to college (since they are more likely to have
taken hallucinogens than the general population,) fat people, thin
people, people who eat possibly heavy-metal contaminated shellfish,
butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, people who live in Nevada (bomb
tests, you know,) steelworkers, miners, redheads who wear bikinis
(skin cancer!) and every other son of a bitch who doesn't lead his
life exactly the way I do.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 7 Jul 1994 18:36:06 GMT

Vitamin K is a substance essential to the mechanism of
blood clotting--it is required for one of the steps in clot
formation--which one exactly now unfortunately eludes me.
I believe you can find vitamin K in some cruciferous vegetables--
broccoli, for example. Also spinach.  
You can get more information on this subject if there is a program
in Redlands (where IS Redlands?) in nutrition. They should have some kind of
text book available....if not, I'll put you onto one after I consult
with my nutritionist pals here....
Hope this helps
E. Kokotos Leonardi
PS You should eat SOME fat--you need it for the synthesis of hormones..they
don't just pop up.....
Just a note of friendly caution
In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jeff

---

From: [email-masked] (Alan Woods)
Date: 8 Jul 1994 03:17:15 GMT

What's your problem?  Vegetarians are far less prone to diseases than 
carnivores--not a matter of opinion, or "live as I do" or anything else.  And 
yes, smokers and drinkers do cost the rest of us money, since our insurance 
rates include them, and the diseases they get result from their behavior, which
could be changed.  I don't mind if someone who has unknowingly been made sick 
by toxic waste is on my insurance paln, but I sure do mind if my premiums are 
higher due to some 2/3/4 pack a day smokers who have known for 30 years that 
smoking tends to kill you.  On the other side, of course, smokers and drinkers 
die earlier, so they aren't a drain too long.

But again, what's your problem?  Why are you so ticked off by a simple 
statement of fact?

---

From: [email-masked] (Charlie Sorsby)
Date: 8 Jul 1994 18:11:15 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
= In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Keith F. Lynch) writes:
= >
= >(Of course it works just as well on living subjects, and could perhaps be
= >used to give insurance discounts to vegetarians, with no possibility of
= >cheating.)
= 
[...]
= butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, people who live in Nevada (bomb
= tests, you know,) steelworkers, miners, redheads who wear bikinis
= (skin cancer!) and every other son of a bitch who doesn't lead his
= life exactly the way I do.

Well said, Stephan!

-- 
Best,

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 8 Jul 1994 18:41:28 GMT

Hi
I don't believe there is a problem. Just a difference in opinion.  Let me at 
first risk angering you quite unintentionally by pointing out that we are
NOT carnivores. We eat meat. We also eat plants, which makes us, in
fact, omnivores.  I belive you mean to say that meat-eaters are subject
to less disease than those who don't eat meat at all.  I beg to differ.
One of the conclusions of the Framingham study was that dietary modification
alone does not change the blood cholesterol level.  That is to say,
a given subject with a given cholesterol level had no change in his/her
blood cholesterol despite a radical change in diet (ie omission of all
animal fats). WHy? Because the susceptibility to cardiovascular
disease is largely genetic.  Brown and Goldstein won a Nobel prize for 
finding the gene responsible for this in the early '80s...it's called
apoE (and the "good" cholesterol by physicians..well, that's another issue)
It seems that our bodies have recptors that act as thermostats that regulate
cholesterol levels just like the one in your office regulates heat.
Normally (that is if you have a normal apoE variant) , after you eat a
hamburger or something with good old palm oil, your body will say,  good, 
there is enough cholesterol in here and HMG co-reductase (the rate 
limiting enzyme in cholesterol synthesis) is shut off.  FOr
those with any number of variants of apoE, HMG co-reductase is not shut off,
sometimes, not at all, and these people die well before their 40th
birthday.
Let me also point out that disease can be either contacted by exposure or
passed on genetically....those that have healthy immune systems
usually have healthy leukotrienes, interleukins, etc etc etc. Your
body may actually become stressed by a total lack of certain vitamins and
fatty acids found only in animal products unless of course, you supplement
your diet with vitamins.  I don't think I have come across into any
study that conclusively states that vegetarians are less disease prone 
than people like myself who eat meat. POint in fact...my grandfather, bless his
96 year old heart, eats meat . Has for a long time.  He's lucky, because
he was a good apoE receptor system.  If he didn't he'd have been dead
a very long time ago.  Another case in point is life in the mostly
vegetarian third world. Read the June 24 issue of Science and see that
diseases caused by malnutrition there are still pretty  rampant.  
Vegetarian diets work only when there are dietary supplements around.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have incisors (otherwise known as canine teeth).
As for smokers and the like costing usm money. Yes they do. THey are also
in some cases our friends, our lovers and our parents. I wish they'd stop.
But I think they deserve the same compassion for their addiction that
an alcoholic or drug addict has. Why? Becasue it's an addiction.
There are nicotinic receptors all over their brains just raging away for 
the stuff.  It's a tough one to beat and I know firsthand...having done it
successfully.  
And incidentally, I agree with you that most people eat not only too
much meat but too much of everything.  Eating too many salads 
isn;t going to help anyone too much :-)
--E. Kokotos LeonardiIn article <[email-masked]>,

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 15:06:53 GMT

Stephan Zielinski ([email-masked]) wrote:

: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Keith F. Lynch) writes:

: >I've read that it's possible to tell what proportion of protein a person
: >got from animal sources, by measuring the nitrogen isotope ratio of the
: >remains.  Has this been done?
: >
: >(Of course it works just as well on living subjects, and could perhaps be
: >used to give insurance discounts to vegetarians, with no possibility of
: >cheating.)

: Good plan.  After we implement that one, we can raise life insurance
: rates for smokers, drinkers, people who live in urban areas and are
: thus exposed to pollution, people who live in rural areas with
: unreliable electricity (since their freezers may fail briefly in the
: middle of the night, allowing bacteria to get a foothold);

: People who have been to college (since they are more likely to have
: taken hallucinogens than the general population,) fat people, thin
: people, people who eat possibly heavy-metal contaminated shellfish,
: butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, people who live in Nevada (bomb
: tests, you know,) steelworkers, miners, redheads who wear bikinis
: (skin cancer!) and every other son of a bitch who doesn't lead his
: life exactly the way I do.

Bad news.  They've already done it.  And you're included.  :-)

In fact, you've just presented the best argument in favor of universal
medical insurance (as well as life insurance).

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 15:11:11 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:
: Hi
: I don't believe there is a problem. Just a difference in opinion.  Let me at 
: first risk angering you quite unintentionally by pointing out that we are
: NOT carnivores. We eat meat. We also eat plants, which makes us, in
: fact, omnivores.  I belive you mean to say that meat-eaters are subject
: to less disease than those who don't eat meat at all.  I beg to differ.
: One of the conclusions of the Framingham study was that dietary modification
: alone does not change the blood cholesterol level.  That is to say,
: a given subject with a given cholesterol level had no change in his/her
: blood cholesterol despite a radical change in diet (ie omission of all
: animal fats). WHy? Because the susceptibility to cardiovascular
: disease is largely genetic.  Brown and Goldstein won a Nobel prize for 
: finding the gene responsible for this in the early '80s...it's called
: apoE (and the "good" cholesterol by physicians..well, that's another issue)
: It seems that our bodies have recptors that act as thermostats that regulate
: cholesterol levels just like the one in your office regulates heat.
: Normally (that is if you have a normal apoE variant) , after you eat a
: hamburger or something with good old palm oil, your body will say,  good, 
: there is enough cholesterol in here and HMG co-reductase (the rate 
: limiting enzyme in cholesterol synthesis) is shut off.  FOr
: those with any number of variants of apoE, HMG co-reductase is not shut off,
: sometimes, not at all, and these people die well before their 40th
: birthday.

[ much good stuff deleted.]

   --- Uh Oh.  We've enraged a professional.  Now we're in for it.
This was a nice religious argument and now we have to face facts.
The neighborhood is ruined.

     --- Paul J. Gans   [[email-masked]]

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephan Zielinski)
Date: 12 Jul 1994 19:34:50 GMT

>The neighborhood is ruined.

Naah.  This is USENET.  We have no trouble ignoring inconvenient
facts.